Topic: SM 2E questions. Hope someone can help.

[licoricemetal]

Recently inherited the box set for the 2nd edition. Happy happy man. I have some questions since I recently started a campaign and online resources are scarce. Perhaps these are old questions that have been answered elswhere...

1. Is it normal that on most damage charts, AT9-12 armors are better than AT13-16? Shoul'nt it be the opposite? Considering the extra weight and cost on the 13-16? Is there an official fix? We decided to swap the columns for the two categories as a temporary solution

2. There appears to be a single table for damage on AT21-30 vehicles (Player book p.89). My undestanding is that we should use this table against vehicles, but also robots, regardless of weapon type. Are there any charts for more detailed damage against AT21-30 robots? Also, there does not seem to be any indication for MK6-50 damage on characters of AT1-20. Is there any resource (official or not) detailing damage of such large weapons on ordinary targets?

3. I love the Universe of SM 1e/2e. Especially imperial politics and intrigue. Are there any online resources from GMs for that universe? I have access to some campaign books, but they leave me wanting for more.

Please do not suggest that I should use SM:P, I do not have access to the material, and my poor old brain simply cannot cram another set of rules! 

[Nimzog]

1. Is it normal that on most damage charts, AT9-12 armors are better than AT13-16? Shoul'nt it be the opposite? Considering the extra weight and cost on the 13-16? Is there an official fix? We decided to swap the columns for the two categories as a temporary solution

The major difference of those AT are the crits you get lower crit on higher AT

2. There appears to be a single table for damage on AT21-30 vehicles (Player book p.89). My undestanding is that we should use this table against vehicles, but also robots, regardless of weapon type. Are there any charts for more detailed damage against AT21-30 robots? Also, there does not seem to be any indication for MK6-50 damage on characters of AT1-20. Is there any resource (official or not) detailing damage of such large weapons on ordinary targets?

For more on that you would need Star Strike and/or Armored Assault they a complete set of rule on how to at higher AT with small arms and the opposite too.

for the third ICE sells PDF now of everything about SM2

[markc]

licoricemetal,
 Welcome to the ICE Forums.


 Everything Nimzog said above is correct, also some of the AT's in the 9-12 range are animal AT's, Star Strike and Armored Assault are available as PDF's and I do not know of an website for the old SM2 universe as I have not checked in about 10 years, so I would hope on Google and spend some time looking. Good luck on the search 
MDC

[licoricemetal]

Thanks guys for fast reply...

1. Is it normal that on most damage charts, AT9-12 armors are better than AT13-16? Shoul'nt it be the opposite? Considering the extra weight and cost on the 13-16? Is there an official fix? We decided to swap the columns for the two categories as a temporary solution

The major difference of those AT are the crits you get lower crit on higher AT

I thought as much at first, but no. Here are some samples:
Laser: Max for mk2: AT12=4A, AT16=5B; Max for mk5: AT12=15F, AT16=17H
Blaster: Max for mk2: AT12=10A, AT16=13D; Max for mk5: AT12=35F, AT16=43H (see how the discrepancy is huge here!)
Stunner: skipping straight to max damage for mk5: AT12=18C, AT16=20D
Shotgun? 20B vs. 25C
For small projectiles, explosives and martial arts, AT 13-16 are marginally (as in 1 crit level better is the best case, even otherwise) better.
Both AT9-12 and AT13-16 are described as armored bodysuits, with very similar physical description. The only difference is higher maneuver penalties for the 13-16, and higher cost. In almost every aspect, AT13-16 are just worse. Does not make sense to me. Why would anyone with a shred of sense invest on them? unless these are errata?

For more on that you would need Star Strike and/or Armored Assault they a complete set of rule on how to at higher AT with small arms and the opposite too.

OK I'll check on Armored Assatlt (though it seems to address vehicles, not robots, or am I wrong?)

[markc]

 Also AT-12 (as well as AT-11) is mainly animal armor. You can find it in some cases for PC armor in RM but in general it is for animals only.
MDC


 Armored Assault does have construction rules for vehicle sized robots. It does not have info for construction of people sized robots. The only rules for them are in Space Master Privateers Robotics Manuel. Yes it is for SM:P but it is the best source there is out there and you can adapt it to the SM2 system.
MDC 

[licoricemetal]

Also AT-12 (as well as AT-11) is mainly animal armor. You can find it in some cases for PC armor in RM but in general it is for animals only.
MDC

OK then, I'll simplify and make AT9-12 exclusively for living creatures. My players won't like that we will start using the inferior 13-16 tables for themselves, gang of spoiled optimization junkies, but who's the boss?

Armored Assault does have construction rules for vehicle sized robots. It does not have info for construction of people sized robots. The only rules for them are in Space Master Privateers Robotics Manuel. Yes it is for SM:P but it is the best source there is out there and you can adapt it to the SM2 system.
MDC

If that's what it is, then that's what it is! Thanks for the info.

[TerryTee]

Also AT-12 (as well as AT-11) is mainly animal armor. You can find it in some cases for PC armor in RM but in general it is for animals only.

Might be so for RM (?), but this does not match the description in TechBook. It gives a description like for any other armour, and also says some animals will have this type. For the category 9-12 it just says it's used for borh pliable body suits and for some anmimals with rigid hides.

I see this is a 'bug' in the SM2 rules. The attack tables are not balances across the board.

-Terry

[licoricemetal]

Might be so for RM (?), but this does not match the description in TechBook. It gives a description like for any other armour, and also says some animals will have this type. For the category 9-12 it just says it's used for borh pliable body suits and for some anmimals with rigid hides.

I see this is a 'bug' in the SM2 rules. The attack tables are not balances across the board.

-Terry

Thank you Terry, my point exactly. So I am curious to know how other GMs out there deal with this "bug". Or am I the only one using the old SM these days?

In fact, discrepancies with regard to armor in damage charts are not limited to tech laws. If you look at the charts in Star Strike, you will notice that CAT24 is better than CAT25-26 is many cases, even if its cost in monits and space is much much lower!

I am also curious to know how these damage charts were designed, and how they were balanced.

[markc]

 I do not think that ICE will release the formulas that helped create the SM2 tables, even if they had that info from way back when. That would be company intellectual property and be worth a lot of $ as people have been asking for that info for years.
 
 If I was to guess and I am guessing they said ok some armor is going to be more effective vs some types of damage. Once that had that info they designed the charts using the rules/ideas/methods they created in RM2.


 Are you the only one using SM2? No as I and many others use Star Strike and Armored Assault rules for starship and ground based combat, but use SM:P rules for PC creation and everything else.
 But are you one of a few people using the SM2 rules for everything, yes. Does that matter here. No. The ICE Forums try and help everyone they can.
MDC

[licoricemetal]

Looking at various forum posts, I see there is debate regarding SM:2E vs. SM:P

Reluctantly: Is there a consensus about which aspects of the rules are outright better with Privateers than with 2E? And can I realistically expect to integrate rules from Privateers into my setting in a modular fashion without entirely converting to SM:P?

[TerryTee]

I just played around with the tables a bit, and an ‘easy’ fix is to make the ATs 9-12 be the average of 13-16 and 5-8. So 9 becomes the average of 5 and 13 while 12 becomes the average of 8 and 16.

Laser, old: Max for mk2: AT12=4A, AT16=5B; Max for mk5: AT12=15F, AT16=17H
Laser, new: Max for mk2: AT12=6B, AT16=5B; Max for mk5: AT12=18H, AT16=17H
Stunner, old: skipping straight to max damage for mk5: AT12=18C, AT16=20D
Stunner, new: skipping straight to max damage for mk5: AT12=22D, AT16=20D

The difference may not seem huge, but have a look at AT8 as well. It is actually pretty close to AT16 as it is. Placing AT 12 ‘between’ them actually seems ok. Same goes for the other ATs in the range.
I said ‘easy’ fix. To me this is fairly easy since I have the attack tables in excel. If you don’t, then there’s a bit more hassle. Besides, having a house rules version of the attack tables is a pain anyway since TechBook suddenly becomes useless for that purpose.

Blaster: Max for mk2: AT12=10A, AT16=13D; Max for mk5: AT12=35F, AT16=43H (see how the discrepancy is huge here!)

When it comes Blasters, the criticals in the attack charts in #9000 is ‘random’, while they are linear in the #9200 version. My boxed set is #9000, but I have swapped out the Blaster attack chart for the #9200 one.

There are a few SM2 players here, myself included. I've never used SM:P, but I do have the rules. It may be possible to plug the combat system in, but that part is actually different from SM2, with a world specific armour type mechanism (I think) and a different systems for ATs in general.

-Terry

[markc]

Looking at various forum posts, I see there is debate regarding SM:2E vs. SM:P

Reluctantly: Is there a consensus about which aspects of the rules are outright better with Privateers than with 2E? And can I realistically expect to integrate rules from Privateers into my setting in a modular fashion without entirely converting to SM:P?

  By consensus do you mean # of people that play SM:P vs SM2? If you do then more people use the SM:P rules than SM2 rules. But in general people prefer the SM2 universe to that of the SM:P universe. Does that make sense?


  Better game system is a loaded question in that what type of game system do you prefer? Do you like lots of skills, then SM:P (But again if you use all of the skills from various sources the number of skills is about the same). Do you like bonus to some skills every level no matter what, then SM2.
  I will come right out and say that I am biased in the SM:P came as the PC creation system is a bit more complex but once you understand it it makes a lot more sense.
  I think the future will hold a USM (SMU) or Unified Space Master based on the beta Unified RoleMaster (URM or RMU) that is undergoing comments right now. I do not have an opinion right now on RMU as it is not finished yet. IMHO it can become a great game or it still can become a mess of a game. It all depends on what is in the final version and why it is there.


Does that help at all?
MDC


I forgot to say that I have used the SM2: SS and SM2: AA with SM:P with very little trouble. IMHO it is a bit more of a exercise to use the SM:P RM (Robotics Manuel) with SM2. It can be done but again IMHO it is easier to use the starship combat from SM2 in SM:P than trying to convert robotic PC generation from SM:P into SM2. Others may have their own opinion.


MDC 

[licoricemetal]

Lots to reply to:

To Terry: averaging out two columns is a reasonable fix, but I don't want to add complications to a system which is already complicated enough. So I'll stick with permitting only one set of columns for armors and the other set for animal. Besides, the description for the armored bodysuits 9-12 and 13-16 is soooo similar that it all appears redundant to me. Why 2 sets of identical armors? it feels to me like a blind attempt to emulate the range of armors is RM. You are right I have the #9000. Damn! So I will have to find, download and print the 9200... sigh.
 
To MDC: I guess my interpretation of modularity is on a smaller scale. For example, I would split the core game into these components:
- Player generation
- Game mechanics for skills
- Game mechanics for combat
- Items, weapons and technology
- Combat charts

So can we combine elements from both games at this scale?
I guess I have decided to stick with SM2 for the time being, and attempt to balance the issues as they come.

About the unified SM: That could be great news indeed. Don't get me wrong, I think good old SM:2E is a great game, else I would not be using it, but it shows its age. RPGs (just like video games) have greatly evolved since the 80s, and there are new standars for game balance and for efficiency and completeness of rulesets. Bringing SM to the new standars is not a bad idea. I would love to participate to the playtesting of new system when the beta (or whatever they call RPGs at that stage) is ready. I am obsessive about game balance and half my players are game designers.

Cheers,

N

[markc]

licoricemetal,
 
 First on the RMU note: That is great about the group you are with. If they would like to get the beta rules and add comments or just lurk all they have to do is get an ICE Forum account and download the rules.


Modularity:


1) When I was think of modular I was thinking that you could add the spaceship combat rules to SM:P.
2) Combat Charts: The charts are very different (some what different as you would expect after 20 years). I generally use Arms Law 97, AL: Firearms Law and Blaster Law for my charts and combat.
3) The combat systems in SM2 and SM:P are very different.
4) PC gen is different
5) Items, Weapon and Tech can mostly be swapped in and out but the GM has to have a good idea on what it would do. So SM:P has small unlimited power generators for weapons that may not work in your SM2 universe. But Blaster Law does have charts in the back for a lot of the SM2 Universe weapons so you can use the charts in Blaster Law.
6) Robotics in SM:P are based on a talent method that you could port over to SM2 but it would take some work and a good eye for balance.


MDC   

[licoricemetal]

MDC,

thanks for all the info. Looks like switching to privateers (core gameplay) is an all or nothing deal. I don't think I will invest heavy money on it since I have much of the printed material for 2E, and it would go to waste. If I have to switch, it will be for the newest sensation...

I have questions about this new unified system.
- Is it Unified as in universal RPG, like HERO and gurps? Does it cover rules specific to SF settings such as robots, research, high tech equipment, etc?
- So where can I find this beta? in the forums? I seem to recall something about it, maybe an email from ICE, but I can`t find it now.
- I will definitely ask my players to get the beta.

Cheers,

N

[markc]

licoricemetal,
 
1a) Right now the Beta is only fantasy but it does have some areas for modern and future tech. Such as gun's and science, which are needed for Shadow World. And if it is going to be Shadow World Compliant then it has the possibility of being a full Sci Fi game.
1b) I have not looked at Heroes for a long long time but I do have some GURPS book on my shelf and as I said above the RMU Players Guide right now is focused on fantasy and not Sci Fi.
1c) I do not remember it having a setting but being setting neutral. 
2) The Beta test is at the top of the ICE Forums and should say New RoleMaster Beta Testing, or something close to that.
3) As I said before the Beta is free and if you want to comment or just see where the game goes it is all fine and good.


 I can understand $ being tight but I can say also that I have used the SM2 adventures in SM:P with out any problems. I can say that I also have used old Traveler Adventures with SM:P and it was great.


Does that help? Did I get all of your Q's answered?
MDC

[licoricemetal]

thanks MDC that was helpful. I`ll check the stuff out.

N

[illegal_army]

In answer to question one AT 9-10 are light abs suit.  At 11-12 are used for armoured alien ceatures and well as androids. You also note that AT 3-4 are used for ceatures and well some robots and androids . It not possible in the normal rules for pc to use At 12 unless he is android . Star strike and armoured assaults has more details of Giant robots.  There are rules for power armour in armoured assault. Space master compainion 1 and 2 are good buys if want to play  2 Ed. spam co 1 more expansive skills list as well larger Backround options table . Spam Co 2 have more cybertech so you can make cyberborgs.

[illegal_army]

I just thought should note the At 9-12 start take crits and hp loss  soon then At 13-16. so in a fight. you are more likley to be around longer in the fight

[TerryTee]

In answer to question one AT 9-10 are light abs suit.  At 11-12 are used for armoured alien ceatures and well as androids.

Also AT-12 (as well as AT-11) is mainly animal armor. You can find it in some cases for PC armor in RM but in general it is for animals only.

Ok, so now two people are saying this, so I'm curious as to where this is stated in the rules (or a setting?). As far as I can see there is no difference between ATs 9-10 and ATs 11-12.

• All four of them have descriptions on page 22 in TechBook and on page 60-61 in Players Book.
  
• All of them have maneuver penalties on page 62 in PlayersBook.
• All of them have weights and prices on page 27 in TechBook.
• All of them are listed in the Armor Accessory Availability Chart in Companion 1.
• (I can’t think of more places to look )

Granted, the description of ATs 11-12 says they are ALSO used for some animals, but that is just added in brackets.

-Terry